State v. Seelig
226 N.C. App. 147
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant Seelig sold bread products advertised gluten free starting 2009; products were not gluten free.
- Indictments: 23 counts of obtaining property by false pretenses, later partially dismissed.
- Evidence showed gluten-containing ingredients sourced from Tribecca Oven and other suppliers; testing largely indicated gluten presence.
- Trial admitted Sean Kraft’s testimony via live two-way video from Nebraska under Craig framework.
- Court held Craig test governs confrontation analysis post-Jeffries; necessary to assess necessity and reliability.
- Defendant appealed on multiple grounds, including indictment sufficiency, confrontation rights, double jeopardy, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether indictments facially defective for failing to allege misrepresentation | Seelig | Seelig | Indictments facially valid under Cronin; alleged false pretense by defendant himself. |
| Whether Kraft’s live video testimony violated confrontation rights | State | Kraft testimony violated face-to-face requirement | Craig test satisfied; no Confrontation Clause violation. |
| Whether admission of Kraft’s testimony was structural/error per se | State | Admission was structural error | Not reached; admission not error. |
| Whether double jeopardy denied due to prior civil action | State | Double jeopardy | Issue not properly preserved; Rule 2 not invoked; declined. |
| Whether ineffective assistance of counsel on plea bargaining preserved | State | IAC during plea | Dismissed without prejudice to raise in post-conviction relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cronin v. Cronin, 299 N.C. 229 (N.C. 1980) (indictment must allege elements; inference allowed to prove deception)
- Whedbee v. State, 152 N.C. 770 (N.C. 1910) (indictment must aver essential facts directly; inference limited prior to Cronin)
- Jeffries v. State, 55 N.C. App. 269 (N.C. App. 1982) (videotaped testimony allowed under controlled conditions before Craig)
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (U.S. 1990) (test for necessity and reliability of one-way closed-circuit testimony)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause scope; not overruling Craig’s face-to-face considerations)
- State v. Jackson, 216 N.C. App. 238 (N.C. App. 2011) (recognizes Craig analysis governs confrontation issues post-Crawford)